TWM -
I hope you take note of Coded Logic's post above...
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
TWM -
I hope you take note of Coded Logic's post above...
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
I think this thread has run its course. TWM's points have all been refuted with evidence given so that all lurkers can see the truth of the matter for themselves.
It's got the point now where TWM is denying having had replies which is utterly exasperating for those who have given time to reply to his questions/assertions.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
TWN -
Are you so out of date that you honestly believe that talking about Darwin's beliefs is relevant today?
Anyway, "Principles of Geology"; the clue is in the name. I've also highlighted it for you in case you may overlook it again.
Thanks
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause. We know that the universe had a beginning" - TWM
We don't know the universe had a beginning... We can only trace the expansion back so far after which there is only speculation. You are suffering from the gigo effect, presumably brought about by reading creationist literature and believing it to be true.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
"why are there no transitional fossils in the geologic column. If life has been slowly evolving, there should be billions of fossils in the in between stages, there are none" - TWM
If someone showed you, from the fossil record, the species that was exactly intermediate between 2 other species you would complain that there was now 2 gaps instead of 1...
Yet again what you are writing shows you do not understand the basic terminology of this subject; in this instance what it means to be a transitional fossil...
"Yes Finkelstein I accept micro evolution, I profess by belief that the finches beaks did change but strongly disbelieve that a whale evolved from a mammal. [macro-evolution]. " - TWM
So you believe I can take 1 step but cannot accept I can walk across town... That about sums up your comment.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
"In 1983 distinguished British cosmologist Sr. Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one celled organism by chance at 1 in 10^40K." - TWM
There is nothing simple about a 1 celled organism. It is this type of misunderstanding that is leading you down the garden path to the shed of absolute nonsense.
When people have worked these figures out, as in this case, the assumption to the calculations has been what is the likelihood of the sequences appearing, fully formed and all together in 1 neat package. That, of course, is what happens in creation accounts and is not what science teaches on these subjects. Another assumption is that amino acid sequences are randomly joined with no preference for order. This is wrong...yet again...
Suffice it to say, there is a lot more to these calculations that is being revealed in your posts...
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
"Please note, on the topic of evolution vs creation, every book written on the subject has been criticized" - TWM
Have they? Who cares, I was referring to the critique of the particular book that contains the basis for the argument that you used in your OP. What I gave you was sufficient for you to question the basis for your argument. What I gave you explained what your author actually wrote and why what he found was to be expected using evolutionary Theory. In other words it removes the premise for your OP.
Your beliefs are based on straw men.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
"Thanks for all that information on dating rocks, Please note, we are not discussing geology, but Cytochrome c. In this discussion the age of rocks is irrelevant" - TWM
It is very relevant to this discussion because you said:
"What this points to is that all living creatures appeared on the fossil record at about the same time."
You suggest that Cytochrome c infers all living creatures appeared at the same time (I assume in an attempt to justify a belief in the genesis creation account) yet the geology conclusively shows this is wrong. So yes, showing you how other branches of science contradict this thought of yours is relevant.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
TWM
To be fair, considering you are posting ideas that were debunked those 30 odd years ago when they were first asserted, you should be thankful of any attention and not dismissive of it as you are with Simon's contribution.
Also, you keep alluding that faith is needed to accept evolution. That statement tells me all I need to know about the level of your understanding of the work involved in the natural sciences...
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Fisherman,
Cofty has answered your questions to a level any reasonable person would be satisfied with. I really cannot understand why you think he hasn't answered your questions fully. You are just restating your assertions and ignoring the obvious. Either you are wrong and the Bible doesn't contradicts itself with regards to eating animals that are found already dead or your are right and the Bible contradicts itself. I could care less either way but based on the explanations given by Cofty I think you are wrong. Context of scripture is crucial in these discussions and I feel you are not taking note of that.